1976 (11) TMI 100 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Refusal of registration under section 184 of the Income Tax Act to a partnership firm due to doubts on genuineness.

Analysis:
The appellant applied for registration under section 184 of the Income Tax Act as a partnership firm with five partners. The authorities below refused registration, citing doubts about the genuineness of the firm. The main grounds for doubt were that the contract was obtained in the name of one partner, the bank account was in the same partner's name, and the other partners were deemed to be men of no means and merely employees of the main partner. The authorities held that the firm was not genuine based on these factors.

The appellant argued that the partnership was formed after securing the contract, which is why the firm's name was not initially listed as the contractor. It was explained that the main partner had a history of securing contracts in his own name and then forming partnerships for execution. The fact that the firm's name was not initially on the records of the contracting party should not disqualify the firm from registration under the Act.

Another point of contention was that the bank account was operated solely by one partner. However, it was clarified that it is permissible for one partner to manage the accounts and oversee the business without affecting the genuineness of the firm. Legal precedents were cited to emphasize that the key conditions for a partnership are an agreement to share profits and losses and the joint conduct of business.

The authorities also raised concerns about the financial capacity of the partners to undertake the contract business. It was highlighted that three of the partners had previously worked with the main partner in different partnerships, even though they were ordinary masons without significant means. Registration had been granted in earlier years for similar partnerships, indicating that the financial status of the partners should not be a barrier to registration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the refusal of registration by the Income Tax Officer was incorrect. The appeal was allowed, and the Income Tax Officer was directed to grant registration to the assessee firm.